THE OPPONENTS OF marijuana legalization have been lauding a recent European study reported in TheLancet as proof positive that they were right. They have gone as far as saying the medical community is in agreement, marijuana is a health threat that causes schizophrenia and needs to be kept out of the public. According to them since the plant has been modified to a far higher potency, there are epidemics of psychotics in areas where it’s legal. There are some problems here.

To begin with let’s clarify what is actually happening. A cursory online search will suggest the prohibitionists are successfully misleading the public. The word “cause” is the focus of my attention here. Much of the research concludes that excessive indulgence–everyday usage–of the high potency strain can create symptoms that mirror schizophrenia, not actually cause the disorder. It can make schizophrenia worse if someone already has it.

Why is this Significant?

The prohibitionists claim that schizophrenia can’t always be cured but what does it mean if it’s not schizophrenia? What if since it’s not really schizophrenia but only appears that way, it needs another form of treatment? Most importantly, if they are misleading with the wording, what else are they not being honest about?

Making it seem like this is new ground-breaking information, is another misleading factoid. From the moment marijuana prohibition was originally proposed in the 1930’s, mental health conditions were the validation. Schizophrenia, laziness and the munchies are all well known as “side effects” of marijuana. Problem is like many other disorders, genetics are a factor in how the body responds.

Not all cigarette smokers will get lung cancer or alcohol drinkers get sciroccos or liver cancer. They are genetically preconditioned to it, it’s the same with marijuana and psychosis.

The study itself has a large problem, or technically a small one, a small sample size to be more accurate. The research team may have traveled the world for subjects, it doesn’t change the fact that they only examined a few thousand people. The global population is in the billions, so saying a comparable blip of a few thousand isn’t accurate, you need a sample of a few million. That’s actually a problem and one of my questions of the study. Drawing a conclusion from such a small sample is ridiculous.

Sample size and genetic predisposition aside, the study itself would need to be studied too. The biggest issue that could come up with the study is researcher bias. Does the one conducting the study already have an opinion and setting it up to get the result they want? In my research on the Dr. Marta Di Forti, of the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, & Neuroscience at King’s College London, I couldn’t find any information to draw a conclusion.

Their other argument

The other argument by prohibitionists, isn’t medical but interference. What has them so bent out of shape is that marijuana now has lobbyists. What! A marketable consumable product has a special interest group pushing for it! That never happens! Except when it comes to pretty much everything. Which also includes the alcohol industry and the prescription drug companies. Both two industries trying to keep marijuana from the marketplace.

Conclusion: Why none of this matters

The prohibitionists will probably be very baffled by this, but in the end none of this matters. Not if you are truly in favor of limited government at any rate.

Whether you are against medical marijuana or recreational marijuana, if you think laws telling people what they can put in the bodies are right, you are not truly for limited government. That’s the problem with the conservative movement it may rant and rave against government overreach but when given the chance to prove it, they fall short.

States have already voted yes on having marijuana legal, and already complications because of the federal moratorium, they don’t need other states interfering. Or media, medical officials, politicians or the general public getting in between the consumers and producers.

Both recreational and medical markets are being excessively criticized because of excessive consumption is the prohibitionists lame attempt to sway public opinion. Oddly enough smoking in general is apparently quite high in schizophrenia sufferers, so their high marijuana consumption could be an over looked red flag for the disorder. Anything used in excess can create health complications and the wrong pharmaceutical medical for psychosis can exacerbate the existing condition. That’s why qualified medical professionals are consulted, but that is decided by the consumer.

That was one of the biggest criticisms of the Affordable Care Act, that politicians are getting between the patient and the doctor. Why is that acceptable when it comes to medical marijuana? This is a conservative logical inconsistency that they are blind to and medical patients are suffering because of it.

I’m an advocate for full legislation but anyone who opposes medical marijuana legalization is just plain heartless as far as I’m concerned. With the long list of side effects from medications for epilepsy sufferers and other conditions that do show promise in medical marijuana for relieving if not completely curing, research could be vital. It seems rather absurd to barricade such research due to studies that have come far from a conclusive–or even all that compelling–outcome.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.comand ALTV. He has written books on pop culture, with a new book–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible–to be released.

WITH EACH NEW YEAR, I keep hoping that logic will start to become more popular. So far 2019 has not given me reason to think it’s any different. The non-controversy of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of those incidents

Here’s the issue with Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez. The media, supporters and other Democrat political hacks came to the side of the newly elected Congresswoman against the attacks from the GOP, because of a video that was released of her dancing during her time in school. She then replicated it while leaving the congressional hall recently. “I hear the GOP thinks women dancing is scandalous… Wait until they find out Congresswomen can dance too,” Cortez tweeted. CNN referred to it as an “attempt to discredit” Cortez. The Newsweek report on the matter accused “conservatives of mocking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez… (while) everyone else thought it was adorable.” Thousands of tweets full of outrage addressed to the Republican Party for harassing Ocasio-Cortez. Just one problem, the Republican criticisms never happened.

Founder of LoneConservativeKassy Dillion noted “not one notable Republican thought the video was scandalous.” I would tend to concur, the worst comment I saw called it “frivolous.” While my search was admittedly merely cursory and not in-depth, even a minor online search should have pulled up a multitude of posts. If she was actually being virtually “attacked”, as we would be led to believe, that is.

Frivolous is an accurate description of the matter but this is about making a name for herself. This was nothing more than a Public Relations stunt and I don’t know even the Congresswoman really is the freakishly paranoid. I’m sure her supporters have been eating this up, however, despite how truly pathetic the move was. This is the very nature of the duopoly supporters–when caught in a lie, hide it.

Despite there is no evidence of a social media storm against Ocasio-Cortez to begin with, it hasn’t stopped her from continuing the charade. Tweeting that the “GOP have been losing their minds + frothing at the mouth for a week.” Adding another dubious anti-feminism charge against the Republican Party in the same post, that “women in leadership face more scrutiny.” Oh, so you mean they won’t suck up to you and that validates a slander of sexism. Always fun!

Whether Ocasio-Cortez thinks she is being picked on by the GOP or simply trying to score points with the Democrats. Apparently she has a habit of pissing off the elite of her own party. TrainDemocrats.org forgot that bit of information in the email they sent out in the eCard to show support to Ocasio-Cortez through her, “RELENTLESS Republican attacks.” Noting they are terrified by her “Progressive ideas.” I’m afraid of them too, they leave the country worse off.

It makes no real difference if she has “made history” by being the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. She is one of many manipulators in Washington DC, neither the victim or anything all that special.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture. He has a new book–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible–soon to be released.

NEXT MONTH IS the midterm elections, the chance to feel you are important and being heard. We are told the patriotic thing to do is “go vote” if we don’t; you are deplorable, hate this country and all is lost… It’s the END OF ALL CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT! Easy there, this is never the case. That’s how duopoly politicians and supporters want you to see the world. There’s only two options and in some way the opposition is evil. Truth is both right and wrong policy choices, and there are other options.

Despite all their propaganda, this is not the fall of the United States. It survived, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, it will survive the Talking Cheeto AKA Donald Trump.

The Democrats have been apoplectic since his election, going on pretty much every tangent–no matter how flimsy the evidence to support the claim. And if they can’t win with their “Russian collision” they are currently trying with their luck with the Saudi Arabia debacle.

Since that hasn’t–and probably will continue not to work–they will more than likely be turning back to the duopoly’s other major tactic, obstruction. They are been attempting this in pretty much every policy and with the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. None of which has really been effective, even with the Twitter calls of action by Taylor Swift or protests by Alyssa Milano.

Despite all this, the Democratic Party has stood tall in their declaration that a “blue wave is coming” and it’s the “end of the GOP.” Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Heard this before from both sides, it hasn’t happened yet. Could it happen? Maybe, if so it would more than likely be that both parties are abandoned.

Here is the major obstacles for the duopoly:

Diminish the opposition support. That’s more difficult to do when the opposition is in power. And with the controversial manner they handled the Kavanaugh nomination, the Republican base is at a fever pitch. They are extremely angry and that will surely carry over to the midterm elections.

Excite their own base. That’s difficult when your party are mostly activists. They have a habit of not following their protests with actions. Due to their unreliability, they pose a serious problem for the “blue wave.”

Enlist the Third Party and independent voters. This is actually problem the biggest obstacle for either duopoly party. Neither one is particularly effective at reaching out to the independent voter. They are an enigma to them and what’s more they don’t seem to listen to them. Both are accustomed to telling their base to get out and vote, or else. An independent voter will simply ask them, “or else what?” When they clearly can’t answer, that’s when they lose them.

The Democratic Party had an opportunity to be the bigger man, they chose not. If they want to grow their party with independent voters they are going about it all wrong. They have to actually listen and be genuinely engaged in a discussion with an independent voter. No shallow sound bites or doomsday hyperbole. Offer real solutions and answer questions, give the independent voter security that you are sincere and at least heard them out. And this all goes to the Republicans as well.

There are a few that understand this and can reach out, Rand Paul is one them. Polls taken after the presidential election showed he could have taken out Hillary Clinton, with a gathering of Republicans, Democrats and independents. If his campaign had the funding of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and Trump and the Republican elite hadn’t pushed him out, he probably would be our president now. But then we wouldn’t have the entertainment of another pop culture president or the call for blue wave, that appears to by nothing but a light rain.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has also written books on pop culture, with an upcoming new book Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible in the works.

JUST WHEN THE GUN control insanity looks like it can’t get any worse, the well goes deeper.

A thirteen-year-old, Ethan Sonneborn, is running for governor in the state of Vermont. And his entire platform seems to be getting rid of guns. Referring to the Florida shooting as “a good opportunity to make change.” During the same CNN interview, he also expressed a feeling of a lack a “national dialogue about how we move forward” regarding guns. And that while he respects the prominent hunting culture in his state, “if it’s … between letting my friends have a good time at the firing range and them possibly being involved in a school shooting, I’m choosing legislation to protect them from the school shooting.”

Of course, the Democrat Party isn’t going to let this “opportunity” go to waste and state’s executive director of the party, Conor Casey, eagerly aggrandizes Sonneborn. Saying he “really did embrace the gun issue early on” and he’s “representing the younger people” and “a good voice for them”

Obviously, his candidacy has complications, like high school and no driver’s license. “He’s dependent on other people for rides to statewide events he speaks at,” Casey tells CNN. Thanks to the idiocy of Vermont’s not having any age requirements, the state could be saddled with a prepubescent politician.

Even Casey had his doubts at first of Sonneborn, thinking this was a part from “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” but he claims, “that’s not the case.” More than likely it’s simply because he has the same maturity level as the child governor.

Children feeling strongly about issues and encouraging them to express themselves is good, it makes them confident in expressing themselves as an adult, but they also need to get used to backing up arguments with facts. Otherwise we end up not going forward and going by his statements on CNN he is well on his way to turning into a typical Democrat. All emotion, no logic.

Learning hard work and the beginning stages of a career will help a child transition into adulthood, that is true. And child labor laws make it more difficult for families to make ends meet, at the same time protecting union members jobs. But no child should have such a job that puts them in a position of power, we already have enough adults acting like children in Washington D.C.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture and has a new upcoming release–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible.

IS BURGER KING THE king of burgers? Hard to say since the Burger industry has so many choices. And the king has decided to go social activists rather than focus on their product.

Starting with a misleading video on Net Neutrality, the chain now introduced an anti-bullying PSA.

Now what’s wrong with that? You might be asking. It could be nothing, but it gives the impression that they care more about social justice than their customers.

Take the new ad, they have teen actors pretend to bully another teen and send their customers “bullied” burgers, and record the reactions. Will the customers be more upset about the burgers or the bullied? If it were me, I’d be furious that they care more about catering to activists than to paying customers.

I don’t go to Burger King often, so losing my business would be imperceptible to their bottom line but that they value their customers, so little is troubling. Especially when the market has so many options and burgers, are not their only competition. Fast food and restaurants are a demonstration of the success possible in the free market.

If examined, there are probably already signs of distress within the company because this. Keep in mind this merely speculation on my part.

Besides the willingness to dismiss their customers, the causes they are advancing, and the marketing campaigns are baffling. So far, Net Neutrality and bullying are their causes. And both campaigns have issues; the Net Neutrality one is blatantly wrong in their analogy and the bullying one is inviting a lawsuit.

Either they don’t understand Net Neutrality, or they are on the wrong side. To do their concept accurately it would have to be, the customers getting more than the asked for. Net Neutrality using their burger analogy would be the customer orders a a burger and they are served the burger and a chicken sandwich, fries, a chocolate shake, a dessert and everything else off the menu. Or they never get the burger at all and only get everything else that you don’t want.

As for the other ad, I’m confused exactly what they were expecting the customers in their establishment to do. Verbally confront the “bullies?” But what if the patrons turned violent on the actors? That’s not even all that unlikely given how passionately people have gotten on the issue. Or worse what if one of the patrons were armed? Is the little impromptu theater worth the life of one of these actors? It’s not the patrons’ responsibility to make and keep a safe environment, it’s the business owners.

However you look at it, this idea by Burger King management is asking for trouble, starting with that it appears both ads are online only. The chain could have put these ads online and on TV, a plan that would make more sense. Maybe it’s just my skeptical nature, but when things don’t add up, it generally is because of the worst case scenario. In this case, I suspect they are trying to reach a specific demographic, the youth. Those passionate youth, that will cause “the next social revolution” and won’t question these causes. Can we just get the fries and hold the social justice, please?

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture and has an upcoming new release–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible.

AS PERPLEXED AS I GET from Democrats who vehemently hate Trump or the Hollywood Republicans that continually dismiss his faltering there is a group that confuses me more than both combined. The Hollywood Republicans who hate Trump. Most of them seem confused on the Republican part.

The two most noteworthy are Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Both are confused about guns in the party platform. Stallone calling for an all-out ban that makes Michael Moore sound reasonable. He adopted this attitude shortly after the death of Phil Hartman. Arnold’s not much better but has a far less benevolent justification saying he’s a “peace loving kind of guy.” If that’s true, then start by leaving us gun owners alone.

This is not the only issue the “Terminator” is confused on, he’s also a hard-core environmentalist. And he’s eager to take on the oil companies with full force. He charges that the oil companies are intentionally and without regards “killing people all over the world” by providing manipulated data on environmental change, and he’s determined to take them to court currently meeting with private law firms.

From The Hill:

“Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) is planning to sue oil companies, alleging they are ‘knowingly killing people all over the world.’

‘This is no different from the smoking issue. The tobacco industry knew for years and years and years and decades that smoking would kill people, would harm people and create cancer, and were hiding that fact from the people and denied it. Then eventually they were taken to court and had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars because of that,’ Schwarzenegger, a global environmental activist, said.

‘The oil companies knew from 1959 on, they did their own study that there would be global warming happening because of fossil fuels, and on top of it that it would be risky for people’s lives, that it would kill.’

Schwarzenegger accused oil companies of being irresponsible and vowed to go after them.

‘It’s absolutely irresponsible to know that your product is killing people and not have a warning label on it, like tobacco,’ he said.

‘Every gas station on it, every car should have a warning label on it, every product that has fossil fuels should have a warning label on it.’

He said he hopes to spread awareness about the harmful effects of fossil fuels.

‘I don’t think there’s any difference: If you walk into a room and you know you’re going to kill someone, it’s first-degree murder,’ he said during the interview.

‘I think it’s the same thing with the oil companies.’ “

I don’t put stake on the opinions of celebrities when it comes to the issues anyways but this idea of “labeling all fossil fuel” consuming products and taking out companies is particularly absurd. That will cost them massive amounts of money in a pointless Kabuki theater for egotistical means.

Schwarzenegger may believe what he claims or he’s simply trying to get attention, I don’t really care his goals, I do care that if he succeeds this will cost the consumer at the gas pumps. I care that he’s not using his influence to privatize the energy market, giving the consumer better access to alternative fuels. Getting rid of the federal subsidies on energy would force them to listen to the consumer and start manufacturing products that are more environmental friendly. Because that’s what the consumer demands.

When Trump cut the funding for social services–Meals on Wheels and after school programs–Schwarzenegger stepped up and started his own charity program to aid them, I applaud him for that. But why not do that for other issues he feels passionately about?

Instead he would rather side with the environmental activists and Trump haters. Parroting the “Russians make him say certain things” and condemning his failure to call out racists after the Charlottesville shooting.

Trump and Schwarzenegger have been having a very public feud for quite a while now on Twitter. It’s covered both men’s shortcomings, and both have had bruised egos. It makes sense that Schwarzenegger is holding a grudge but get over it and start researching.

He derides Trump if he wants to bring back more coal mines that it would be detrimental to the since it’s “dirty energy.” Actually, it’s not, and majority of our energy is coal. Our energy sector is based on a system that utilizes fossil fuels, changing that takes time and money, a cost that taxpayers shouldn’t have to burden. Environmental activists are the ones concerned, they should be the ones to take the burden. The “warning signs” of environmental calamity have been going off for hundreds of years, there’s no excuse for letting it reach critical.

The Republican Party is supposed to be about limiting government, not limiting personal choices. While the party has a history of faltering on that, the stances these two Hollywood “Republicans” have taken are even worse. They don’t understand the consequences of what they propose. What they want will hurt people and leave them less safe. It hurts those that haven’t done anything wrong, takes away their choices and makes them further subservient to federal government.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture and has a new upcoming release–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible.

ONE TERM THAT IS A favorite one amongst collectivists is “human rights.” It’s a term further advanced by the United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” initiated by Eleanor Roosevelt, a former U.N. member. Problem is “human rights” don’t exist and those rights in question are either “natural rights” or free market products and services that they are trying to claim for their agenda of control.

That aside, there is the question of efficiency as well. The legislative actions of those in power have given valid cause of concern.

One such question is the concerns with health care. Should health care be conducted as a free market concern or government one.

I have had limited need for health care services at this stage in my life but have seen the differences when being there for family members. This is the observations I’ve made with health care: primary care is altogether superior to hospital care. It’s easy to see why too. You are treated as an individual, not a number. You have to set an appointment, you’re generally in faster and given more personal care.

Keep in mind this is not an indictment of the service providers but the nature of the business. The service providers I think do care and it’s not they who are not at fault. The business side of hospitals is inefficient and similar to the assembly line. Your done and on to the next one. It’s also not to say that hospitals are bad or unnecessary, emergency care is a needed social service–it could be provided in a better manner though.

Why is this relevant? Because big government pushes out the primary care competition. If they had their way all medical care would be done at the hospital. That would be a bad thing! Prices for services would go up exponentially and quality of care would be atrocious. Think the soup kitchen lines during the great depression.

The U.N. has even made it a goal to indoctrinate the children to misunderstand human rights by including educational materials, so they “understand” human rights and their importance. The most important thing we can do with human rights is avoid them.

We have something better, we have “natural rights.” The right to speak our minds, believe what we want, defend our selves in the manner we decide and private property rights and all not by an authority figure. Even the United States Constitution doesn’t grant its citizens it’s right but simply defines those rights.

Other concerns are dealt with by consumer discretion. Through boycotts, word of mouth and online ratings; the world is far more efficient and safe than any federal consumer protection agency or health and human services could employ.

Before we give the United Nations full governing power in our daily lives–the environment, gun rights, free speech, health care, foreign policy, etc.–the cost of adopting “human rights” over “natural rights” should be examined.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture with an upcoming new release–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible.